Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Another Perspective on PVE Group Gameplay

  1. #1
    Marios's Mustache Wax Reputation: 10

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    8
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LastDemon View Post
    I'm just not a reader. If you could condense that down to 3-4 sentences it'd be great.
    My quick opinion on PvE is that there needs to be a trinity but it doesn't have to be limited to three roles. Maybe a trinity that included support instead of just healing. But for sure looking at Guild Wars 2 some sort of trinity needs to exist for PvE.
    I could do that but then if it's so simple without any substance behind it people will assume something that it's not. Sorry when I post stuff it's with substance for understanding. Perhaps you should read the OP, it won't take you longer than 5 minutes. The trinity is intact but redefined on several levels.

    I guess this is just another troll forum like rerolled.

  2. #2
    Samus' Girdle Reputation: 10

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    34
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    I think support that isn't in the form of healing would go a long way.

  3. #3
    Marios's Mustache Wax Reputation: 10

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    8
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elsalvador View Post
    I think support that isn't in the form of healing would go a long way.
    Have you read the full OP? I have mentioned that Support includes more than healing

  4. #4
    Marios's Mustache Wax Reputation: 10

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    8
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arri View Post
    I feel like you glossed over tanking in order to talk about your proposed combat scenarios. For tanking you pretty much say "let all melee classes tank." and that's the end of that, then you go on to say, "There shouldn't be zerging because all members of the team should be focusing on their own enemies." In which case, there is no tank. Or are you saying you want each melee character to tank one melee enemy, letting the caster enemies run amok across the entire group? Or are the caster enemies "tanked" by other ranged members of the group? In that case you're not broadening your tank archetype to just melee, EVERYONE is a tank if you're focusing on small scale battles where each character fights one enemy.

    Let me play devil's advocate, then: Spellcasters can be interrupted, you say. What's to stop a group from going all melee instead of having any ranged characters? Melee would have an easier time interrupting spellcasters and are able to take more punishment, after all. All you'd have to do to take care of the problem of melee tanking two or more enemies at once would be to zerg the spellcasters, which you don't want to see happen. What happens when I assume you actually have a tank, then? That's when your proposed combat scenarios falls apart, IMO. Tanking involves getting the attention of all enemies onto you instead of your team, therefore negating any "1v1" combat scenarios you were talking about. In that case, you will zerg one enemy at a time in order to defeat them quicker and lessen the overall damage your tank takes.

    But if you're saying "let all the melee tank" and want to focus entirely on 1v1 combat, you're kind of taking away the tanking role in the first place, aren't you?
    This was an on the surface explanation. I wanted to mention each layer as it represents the larger picture of what I am trying to convey. Each section could be it's own detailed thread. That wasn't the point of the thread.

    Like I said in the post I am redefining what a tank is. I am redistributing and broadening the tank role to an archetype level instead of the class level. Tanking isn't considered a defensive role persay with this gameplay. Yes, I am saying that all melee classes are considered 'tanks' as they keep melee 'aggro' from other Support/Caster Classes. Caster classes would be fighting other caster classes. Caster and Support classes can also crowd control any extra Melee or Caster Attacker or any other class they desire if a class can bring that utility to the group. So no, caster's won't be ran amok.

    Melee classes are categorized on what type of fighter they are. Offensive, Defensive, Offensive Countering, Defensive Countering or Deceptive. That is their role what type of fighter they are. I know these roles don't mean much to you because it involves explaining the Melee Combat Mechanics. I just wanted to show you that Melee classes do not get random interrupts unless the Melee is close to the caster to kill. Spell casters/Support get all sorts of utility, such as crowd control, buffing, debuffing, vulnerability detection, snares, damage shields ect.

    Could a full melee group take on a group with some casters? Yes. It would simply bring on new challenges because a full melee group can't heal nor could they crowd control.

    The reason why there are 1v1 battles is to complement the adaptable combat mechanics and strategic AI. Since you don't know how the melee or spell combat mechanics work you're assuming players will just zerg or we're back at square one with the traditional trinity.

    The point is to stir away from the traditional trinity. Go re-read the OP and you'll see different gameplay elements to negate that.

  5. #5
    Retired Staff Reputation: 208
    Arri's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,741
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    So instead of saying "all melee classes can tank" you're saying "Melee classes tank melee, ranged classes tank ranged." So you're pretty much breaking tanking into two bits: melee and range.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •